Emerging Fractures & the Great Emergence

I’m reaching back a little with this one, but I’ve had a partially-drafted post on this for a while and wanted to finish it up and publish it rather than just delete it and let it go. The topic I think is an important one currently.

[O]ver the last century Greenwich Village has been home to various divergent and often oppositional movements, philosophies, political agendas, artistic visions. What then has drawn all of these diverse groups to the Village? A common sense of being ‘defined against’, of wanting an identity that is in contrast to what is seen as the mainstream culture of the day. Thus Greenwich Village is not a movement or manifesto in of itself, it does not stand for a set of beliefs or accompanying actions. Instead it acts as a kind of floating symbol which unites people who are defining themselves against the mainstream culture, despite the fact that many of the groups and movements which found a home under that umbrella would totally disagree with each other, they all agree that they don’t want to be part of the mainstream.

Further on in the post for those who haven’t fully accepted Phyllis Tickle’s assessment, Mark says, “The more I read history I am not sure if we are experiencing a great Emergence: I am more inclined to wonder if what we are seeing is the same dynamic that we have always seen since the birth of the Church, that is the highly dynamic and adaptive nature of our faith.”

I think Mark’s thesis supports what I said previously about this fragmentation, that the interesting point isn’t simply that it’s taking place, but what it means that it’s taking place. I’ve proposed that it represents maturation, that it’s a natural evolution of the state of a movement. As Mark Sayers points out, the alignment of people and groups against something is a natural way for the wider group to form, and it’s not all bad either. As I’ve proposed, the fragmentation that’s being observed is an alternate interpretation of different groups within the wider movement coming together around their emphases, values, and beliefs. In other words, what they’re for. Rather than representing the fragmentation — or imminent demise — of the emergent movement, this development is a necessary and positive stage. Some of the early criticism of the movement was that it was a “negative” one for being against things rather than for anything. Now as some seek to interpret the current zeitgeist within the movement it seems there could be a readiness to criticize the movement for a lack of unifying coherence, but perhaps it should be applauded as a necessary response to an earlier criticism. And as Mark points out, it could simply be “the same dynamic that we have always seen since the birth of the Church, that is the highly dynamic and adaptive nature of our faith.”

It’s great that Mark Sayers is thinking about these things. Good essay, and an xlnt response from the good Brother as well.

The greatest driver of today’s religious macro-change, I think, is emerging technology. Its relentless reach will effectively define tomorrow’s emerging religious community, both local and global – especially global – the ‘hive mind’ of Christianity.

Tickle presents a lot of data and ideas in a masterfully written book, but I think the changes we’re going to see (and are seeing) are less complex. Ironically, it could be that technology will bring us closer to a simpler, organic global faith and more deeply shared ecclesia.

As I have moved from organized religion to casual gatherings, and have spoken to many on the state of the church, it seems that there is a common denominator in both streams: the flesh. Mark’s metaphor of Greenwich Village as drawing people who are “against the mainstream” shows the element of the flesh in those people.

To even believe that we are capable of doing any great thing for God misses the gospel. The gospel is God doing great things through us, not us doing great things for God. So anything apart from waiting on the Lord and acting on His directives, is the flesh.

I think as you say, the fragmentation speaks of more and more people reflecting on what they’re for as opposed to what they’re against. As a critic of the reactive rear view mirror approach I welcome the development.

But it should also cause us to pause and reflect on the differences between the major issues and the minor issues. We should all be able to affirm we are “for” Jesus and “for” loving God and loving others even though we may not all be “for” new monastic life or “for” house church or whatever grabs our attention. We should all be able to affirm that what separates us is much less important than what unites us. We should all be careful to put this fracturing in relative terms rather than abolute terms.

We might consider that Jesus was both for and against, i.e., for the Father, against sin (to clarify: Bible-defined sin, not local or larger church legal codes).

How true, as Alex writes above, the flesh/old nature surfaces in every individual and movement in human history. Jesus tells us a disciple of His kingdom brings forth things old -and- new… both/and.

I’m 56, have lived in intentional community for nearly 40 years and can say from experience there is no such thing as a pristine congregation, regardless. But there is great joy in embracing Him and His people, in learning and experiencing forgiveness, and yes, in agape, challenging one another to grow in a surrendering love to Him who calls us as His disciples.